2015 Annual Survey
Transcript of 2015 Annual Survey
![Page 1: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
![Page 2: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2015 A3CR2 Annual Chief Resident Survey
Mark Hammer, MD Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology
![Page 3: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
St. Louis
![Page 4: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Survey Purpose
• Share facts and information about the structure of training programs
• Use information about resident benefits to address discrepancies at individual programs as well as overall trends
• Share opinions about important issues facing residents in training
• Share ideas for how to deal with these important issues
![Page 5: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Survey Format
• Confidential online survey (surveymonkey.com)
• Multiple choice questions
(single and multiple answer), free text for additional comments
![Page 6: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Survey Topics • Recurring
– Basic Program Information – Resident Benefits – Chief Resident Responsibilities and Benefits – Call
• Readout, Attending Coverage, Ultrasound, MRI – Core Exam and Fourth Year
• Board Review, resources • Mini-Fellowships
– Fellowships – Healthcare Economics and the Job Market – Practice Quality Improvement, Milestones
• New in 2015 – More Moonlighting – More Milestones – Board Review Resources – IR Fellowships – in preparation for IR Residency
![Page 7: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Limitations
• Opinions and estimations • Sampling bias (only chief residents who responded were
included)
• Duplicate responses from programs with multiple chief residents – Most complete response taken for institution-based questions
![Page 8: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
PROGRAM DETAILS
![Page 9: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Participation
• Results available to A3CR2 members and on the AUR website
THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING!
Year Individual Responses
Unique Programs
2015 193 120
2014 212 136
2013 134 99
2012 185 135
2011 259 148
2010 228 140
2009 143 112
Number of Responses 2009-2015
Approximately 180 programs total.
South 30%
Northeast 28%
West 14%
Midwest 29%
Region
![Page 10: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Program Size • Program size increased in the early 2000s but has remained
relatively stable (mean 28, median 25 per program) • The percentage of women has remained low at 25% this year
(average %/program) – Percentage of women in medicine = 46% of all residents per GWIMS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2015201420132012201120092003
Program Size and Gender Distribution
Number of Residents% women per program
![Page 11: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Hospital Coverage and Volume
1 18%
2 22%
3 28%
4 14%
5 or more 19%
# Hospitals / program
101k-250k 17%
251k-500k 37%
501k-750k 16%
>750k 30%
# Studies / year
• The median number of hospitals per program has increased from 2 in 2005 to 3 in 2015.
• The median number of studies per year has similarly increased from 101k-250k in 2005 to 251k-500k in 2015.
![Page 12: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
RESIDENT BENEFITS
![Page 13: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Moonlighting Opportunities
62%
46%
78%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Internal External Any
2011
2014
2015
• Moonlighting remains very prevalent among radiology programs, with internal moonlighting being more common. – Appears to be increasing over the last few years
• 40% of US medical student applicants considered moonlighting opportunities as a factor in ranking programs (rated 3.6/5 in importance) – per NRMP Applicant Survey 2013
![Page 14: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Moonlighting Opportunities
• Both contrast injection monitoring and offering preliminary (after-hours) reads are quite common among moonlighting activities.
• Non-radiology moonlighting is utilized by only a small fraction of radiology residents.
76% 70%
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Monitoring Contrast Offering Prelims Non-radiology
![Page 15: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Resident Benefits
79%
80%
78%
70%
28%
10%
95%
80%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Book fund
Travel stipend
Conference registration fees
Time off to attend conferences (even ifresident is not presenting)
ABR fees
ABR Core Exam travel / housing stipend
AIRP tuition
AIRP housing and/or travel stipend
Perks (1/2) 2015
2014
2013
2012
![Page 16: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Resident Benefits
31%
55%
95%
84%
6%
31%
32%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Lead aprons
Review course tuition and/or travel stipend
STAT Dx
RAD Primer
Qevlar
E-Anatomy
Tablets or other electronics for education
Perks (2/2) 2015
2014
2013
2012
![Page 17: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Resident Benefits cont’d
• AIRP Stipend – Mean $1983 – 99% of residents attend AIRP
• ABR Stipends – Uncommon – Many report that the book/study fund is expected to
encompass these costs • Other benefits mentioned
– Housing stipends – Parking – Meal stipends
![Page 18: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Vacation
<=2 1%
2.5-3 32%
3.5-4 61%
4.5-5 6%
# Weeks vacation
![Page 19: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Informatics Tools
22%
50%
33%
21%
49%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Imaging decision support forcomputerized physician order entry
Integration of clinical data into a singlesystem
Data mining
Automated case tracking
Searchable database of radiologyreports (use for teaching/research)
• The proportion of programs reporting an integrated EMR has jumped from 30% in 2014 to 50% in 2015
![Page 20: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Teaching File
Yes – within PACS 50%
Yes – constructed
in-house 23%
Yes – commercial
product 4%
No 23%
![Page 21: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
CHIEF RESIDENTS
![Page 22: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Chief Resident Tenure
0%
14%
54%
86%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Chiefs - R1 Chiefs - R2 Chiefs - R3 Chiefs - R4
Chief Tenure
![Page 23: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Chief Resident Benefits
• 63% of programs provide salary bonus – Mean $2153
• Intangible benefits – “the opportunity to
interact with co-residents in their finer moments...”
No, 24%
Yes – All of the
cost, 65%
Yes – Part of
the cost, 11%
AUR Attendance Cost coverage
![Page 24: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
CALL, WEEKENDS, AND ATTENDING COVERAGE
![Page 25: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Call and Weekend Coverage
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Night float
Short call (evening)
Separate overnight resident on weekends
Weekend day call
Individual overnight calls followed by a normal day
Individual overnight calls followed by a day off
Call System
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Short Preliminary Reports
Finalized Reports with in-house Staff
Complete Preliminary Reports
Other
Call Dictations
![Page 26: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Call – Changes with Boards
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
No change
Increased call for R4
Decreased call for R4
Increased call for R3
Decreased call for R3
Increased call for R2
Decreased call for R2
![Page 27: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Ultrasound Coverage
• Trend towards increasing 24-hour in-house ultrasound technologist
28%
64%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Sonographer takes home call forafter hours studies
Sonographer in-house 24 hours
On-call residents perform overnightultrasound examinations
2015
2014
2012
2009
![Page 28: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
MRI Coverage
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
On-Call Residents
Fellows from their respectivesection (Neuro, Body, MSK)
Not read until the next morning
Attendings from their respectivesection (Neuro, Body, MSK)
Other
After-hours MR - Who reads?
• The percentage of programs where residents interpret the MRIs is similar compared to last year (86% vs. 90%)
![Page 29: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Readout Format 32%
15%
32%
21%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
There is face to face readout with staff mostor all of the time
There is face to face readout with staff someof the time
There is no face to face readout with staff
There is no morning readout because there isstaff in house for overnight readout
2015201420132011
• Clear trend towards decreasing face-to-face readout, even at programs without overnight staff
![Page 30: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Weekend Coverage
13%
56%
11%
49%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Half-day Saturday
Full day Saturday
Half-day Sunday
Full day Sunday
Routine services are not provided onweekends
Routine Weekend Service Coverage
2015201420132011
• Surprising reversal of trend towards increased routine weekend service coverage
![Page 31: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
After Hour Attending Coverage 41%
42%
32%
2%
35%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Attendings go home at the end of the regular workday (approximately 5-6pm)
Attendings are in-house for extended hours (e.g.5-10pm)
Attendings are in-house 24-hours per day, 7 daysper week
Attendings review all after-hours studies fromhome
Attendings review only select after-hours casesthat on-call residents specifically contact them…
External teleradiology service over-reads on-callresidents (ie: NightHawk)
2015201420132012
• Continued increase in 24-hour attending coverage • 6% of programs reported plans to add extended after-hours
or overnight attending coverage
![Page 32: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
ABR CORE EXAM
![Page 33: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
ABR Core Exam – Pass Rates
Pass 92%
Fail 5%
Condition 3%
Overall Pass Rate
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0% - 20% 20% - 40% 40% - 60% 60% - 80% 80% - 100%
# pr
ogra
ms
Program pass rates
• The official ABR statistics on passage rate are: • Passed 91%; Conditioned 1%; Failed 8%
Of 101 programs reporting pass rates, 17 (17%) had a pass rate ≤75%
![Page 34: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
ABR Core Exam Study Time
Average Weeks Out of Call Pool / Off Service (If Given) Call Pool
11.4 weeks Off Service 5.4 weeks
37%
76%
72%
7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
My program gives time offfrom clinical service to study
prior to the exam
My program takes residentsout of the call pool prior to
the exam
My program places residentson "lighter" rotations which
allow more time for studying
My program does none of theabove
Study Time
45%
70%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
A block of timeaway from clinical
service (weeks,months, etc.)
A period of timedaily off of clinical
service (hours)
Type of Dedicated Study Time (Of programs reporting dedicated time)
![Page 35: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
ABR Core – Pass Rates and Resources • Exploratory multivariate logistic regression
analysis looking at programs with pass rate ≤75% vs. >75% – 17/101 programs with pass rate up to 75% – Variables included: total # of residents, 24-hour
attending coverage, paying for external board review, block of time away from clinical service to study, period of time per day off to study
– The only 2 significant variables are program size and block of time away from service
Variable OR for passing P-value Program size (continuous) 1.09 0.015 Block of time 0.15 0.009
![Page 36: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Board Review Format
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Continue giving internal board review taking casesorally
Continue giving internal board review focused onmultiple choice questions
Stop giving internal board review and provide timefor external review
Continue providing time for external board review
Pay for external board review
Stop providing for any board review
![Page 37: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Physics Board Review 79%
36%
36%
45%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
My program offers physics lectures duringmorning or noon conferences
My program offers physics lectures duringboard review
My program expects physics to be coveredduring self-study time
My program is sending residents to anexternal dedicated review course
2015
2014
2013
![Page 38: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Board Review Resources
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RSNA/AAPM Physics Modules
RadPrimer
External Review Course on physics topics (e.g. Huda)
Radiology review books not directed towards the Core Exam (e.g. RadCases, Case Review Series)
Radiology physics review books (e.g. Huda)
External Review Course on radiology topics (e.g. Duke)
ABR Quality & Safety document
Radiology review books specifically directed towards the Core Exam
Radiographics articles
RAPHEX exams
Review course on DVD
Question Bank other than RadPrimer (e.g. Qevlar)
94%
![Page 39: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
THE FOURTH YEAR
![Page 40: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
The Fourth Year
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
4th year residents rotate through the variousdifferent sections (i.e. no special plans for the
4th year)
4th year residents have the option of focusedtraining (i.e. selectives or mini-fellowships)
4th year residents have the option ofbeginning their fellowship training (i.e. 3 + 2
training) or doing a full-year fellowship
The 4th year will be used primarily forresearch
4th year residents rotate through areaswhere they had deficits in their core
curriculum during the 1st 3 years
• No substantial change from last year
![Page 41: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Selectives
31%
33%
58%
8%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
He/she functions with the same clinicalresponsibilities as a fellow (minus signing
privileges)
He/she functions with some of the sameresponsibilities as a fellow
He/she functions with the responsibilities of asenior resident
He/she is given academic days for study, research,etc.
He/she is taken out of the call pool
While A Selector 2015
2014
2013
![Page 42: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
FELLOWSHIPS
![Page 43: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Fellowships
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180 External Fellowship (goingto a different program)
Internal Fellowship(staying put)
• Approximately 3% of residents are reported to plan doing two fellowships
![Page 44: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Fellowship Choices over the Years
3%
12% 11%
1% 2% 3%
15%
20%
0% 1%
5%
23%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25% 2015
2014
2013
2012
• MSK, Neuro, and VIR remain the top 3 • Small drop in breast with bumps in VIR, Body, and Neuro
![Page 45: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Interest in VIR and Number of Fellowships
0
5
10
15
20
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
# pr
ogra
ms
% Residents going into IR / program
• In our sample of programs • Total number of IR spots reported: 190 • Total number of residents going into IR: 158
• From NRMP data for the 2015 IR match, • Total number of IR spots: 234 (82 programs) • Total of 270 applicants (1.2 applicants/position), 230 matched (85%)
![Page 46: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
05
1015202530
# pr
ogra
ms
# Residents going into IR / # IR spots at that program
Interest in VIR and Number of Fellowships
• In our sample of programs • 78 programs with residents interested in VIR
• 25 of these are at institutions without internal fellowships • 53 are at institutions with internal fellowships
• 34% of residents going into VIR take an internal fellowship • 42% of programs have an early acceptance program for internal
candidates • 69% interview outside candidates before offering internal spots
![Page 47: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
05
1015202530
# pr
ogra
ms
# Residents going into IR / # IR spots at that program
Interest in VIR and Number of Fellowships
• 78 programs with residents interested in VIR • 25 of these are at institutions without internal fellowships • 53 are at institutions with internal fellowships
• Of these, 13 programs report more residents interested in VIR than there are internal spots currently
• 17 additional programs may be affected with the change to the IR Residency (half as many fellowship spots if the fellowship is 2 years)
13/53 programs with more residents than internal spots 17 more
programs
![Page 48: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
HEALTHCARE ECONOMIC$ AND THE JOB MARKET
![Page 49: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Job Market Outlook
9%
52%
31%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Good (I am NOT ATALL WORRIED aboutfinding a job in the
near future)
OK (I am A LITTLEWORRIED about
finding a job in thenear future)
Poor (I amWORRIED about
finding a job in thenear future)
Extremely Poor (Iam VERY WORRIEDabout finding a jobin the near future)
2015201420132012
• We appear to be past the nadir of pessimism
![Page 50: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Job Market Outlook
96% respondents entering fellowship after residency
40%
29% 30%
1% 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Private PracticeJob
Undecided AcademicPractice Job
MilitaryCommitment
Long-Term Career Plans 2015
2014
2013
![Page 51: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Job Market – Perceived Effects on Radiology
78%
0%
35%
83%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Discouraging top-tier medicalstudents from choosing radiology
Encouraging top-tier medicalstudents to choose radiology
Due to lower reimbursement rates,practices are looking for radiologiststrained in more than one fellowship
Practices are trying to increase theirvolume to maintain a similar salarydespite the lower reimbursement
rates.
2015
2014
2013
• Residents still perceive bad job market as likely to discourage top-tier medical students from choosing radiology
• A substantial minority also feels that practices are looking for >1 fellowship
![Page 52: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Creative Ideas for Medical Student Recruiting
• Working with first/second year med students – Anatomy lab; Cadaver CTs – Rads attendings involved in small group modules – Ultrasound teaching sessions
• Medical student rotation – 4th-year externship/rotation with call – Improved curriculum – Increasing attending involvement in med student teaching – Radiology resident teaching sessions – Med student PACS – Required rotation
• Increased involvement with Med Student Radiology Interest Group • Brown-bag lectures for medical students • Career Night • IR Symposium • Medical student research opportunities • Medical student rounds – interactive sessions with medical students • Rad-Path correlation program (multidisciplinary) • Invite med students to department activities
![Page 53: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Training in Healthcare Economics
33%
49%
1%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
No such training
Noon conference series
Optional after-hours lectures
Selective / mini-fellowship /arrangement with a business school
for classes
![Page 54: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
MISCELLANEOUS
![Page 55: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Resident Feedback
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Report signing times
Volumes
Overread rate
Dictation corrections
![Page 56: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Milestones
85%
8% 7%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Yes No Not Sure
Have You Received Your Milestones Report
2015
2014
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Feedback InGeneral
Training/Educationin knowledge
Training/Edicationin professionalismor interpersonalcommunication
Training/Educationin clinical skills
Has Implementation of the Milestones Improved Your:
Yes No Not Sure
![Page 57: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
SUMMARY AND EDITORIAL COMMENTS
![Page 58: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Summary • Thanks again to the 190 or so of you who filled out the
survey! • There was much more data in the survey than we
could present. If you are interested in a particular question, we would be happy to provide more data.
![Page 59: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Summary • There are still too few women in radiology
– In studies, women prefer more patient contact, less technological work / physics knowledge, and less visual work (Roubidoux, et al. 2009; Zener, et al. 2013)
– Perhaps we should try to focus our recruiting on female medical students, emphasizing these areas of perceived dissatisfaction
• Emerging trend in resident benefits: more expenditure on review resources, less on lead aprons – Are there other benefits that are losing out? – Is an emphasis on review a good thing?
• Moonlighting is very common – Residents provide both contrast injection coverage as well as
preliminary interpretations • Informatics tools continue to grow
– Respondents report a big jump in integrated EMRs – Decision support for CPOE remains scant but expected to grow with ACA
requirements
![Page 60: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Summary • The majority of chief residents are reimbursed to
attend AUR – However, a substantial minority is not reimbursed or only
partially so
• Regarding call, the majority of programs have night float systems – It is clear that gaps are then filled with individual shifts very
commonly (mostly evening and weekend) – ACGME limits NF to 6 consecutive days
• Call has shifted away from 3rd year and towards 4th year with ABR exam changes
![Page 61: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Summary • Increasing trend towards 24-hour sonographers
– Only a few programs still have residents scan overnight
• The vast majority of on-call MRI is still interpreted by residents
• Face-to-face readout continues to die out – Not just at programs with 24-hour attendings, though this is
increasing as well
• Routine weekend services showed a surprise drop – Is this sample bias? Or does it reflect a trend to 24-hour ER
coverage and less routine inpatient coverage?
![Page 62: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Summary • Very high Core exam pass rate
– BUT a large number of programs have worrisomely low pass rates – Larger programs tend to do better – Are they simply referral
centers and see more variety of cases? Are their attendings better teachers? Are the attendings more ‘in the know’?
– Some programs still provide dedicated time off to study • Against APDR recommendation and ACGME guidelines • These programs have lower pass rates – does this reflect a (correct)
feeling at those programs that their boards preparation is lacking? If so, the dedicated time doesn’t seem to be working.
– Or, does this reflect what the ABR thinks – that actual experience in the reading room is key to passing?
– Many programs provide funding for external board review • Certainly not in keeping with the ‘experience in the reading room’
model • RSNA/AAPM physics modules and RadPrimer are the most
popular boards review resources
![Page 63: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Summary • VIR, Neuro, and MSK remain the most popular
fellowships – VIR increased this year – 22% of residents at responding
programs
• Already 15% of residents do not match in IR per NRMP • Around 1/3 of residents take internal spots, but at
many programs there are far more interested residents than internal spots – This is destined to worsen with the IR Residency changes: a
2-year fellowship can only take half as many fellows/year
• The good news – job market prospects appear much improved
![Page 64: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Summary • The bad news – job market perceptions may influence
medical student choices – Majority of residents perceive it is discouraging interest – 15% drop in US applicants to radiology (NRMP 2015 data) – Worst % unfilled spots in years (NRMP 2015 data)
• Worst % unfilled spots of all major specialties in NRMP
150 74 65 86
982 1071 1078 1025
2015 2014 2013 2012
NRMP Radiology Match Results Unfilled positionsFilled positions
13% 6% 6% 8% % Unfilled
![Page 65: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Summary • Virtually all residents have now received reports of their
Milestones feedback • Per ACGME, among other goals, Milestones are supposed
to: – “Guide curriculum development of the residency or fellowship;”
“Support better assessment practices” – “Provide more explicit and transparent expectations of
performance;” “Support better self-directed assessment and learning;” and “Facilitate better feedback for professional development”
• Very few residents feel that implementation of the Milestones has concretely improved their feedback or education in any category – Is there a problem to solve in residency feedback, curriculum, or
education? – Are we solving it with Milestones? Is there a better solution?
![Page 66: 2015 Annual Survey](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022030320/586aabbb1a28ab063d8bc132/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Thanks! • Chief Resident Survey Participants!
• Laurie May at RSNA
• Lynn Lammers, APCR President and MIR program coordinator
• Gautham Reddy and the A3CR2 executive and steering committees
• Jennifer Gould and Ron Evens
• Ziga Cizman and Cory Pfeifer
• Anup Shetty, Daniel Holt, and Sarah Connolly
• This presentation will also be available on the AUR Website
– We would be happy to share more data with you upon request